IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Someone to watch over me | Main | Hot stuff »

Comments

Maybe, just maybe someone in the media final found out that models that try to explain NDEs as the simple process of a dying brain have come to see that this explanation has more holes in then the Titanic currently does.

Is your brain really necessary?

The reason for my apparently absurd question is the remarkable research conducted at the University of Sheffield by neurology professor the late Dr. John Lorber.

When Sheffield’s campus doctor was treating one of the mathematics students for a minor ailment, he noticed that the student’s head was a little larger than normal. The doctor referred the student to professor Lorber for further examination.

The student in question was academically bright, had a reported IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no brain at all.

Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column. The student was suffering from hydrocephalus, the condition in which the cerebrospinal fluid, instead of circulating around the brain and entering the bloodstream, becomes dammed up inside.

Normally, the condition is fatal in the first months of childhood. Even where an individual survives he or she is usually seriously handicapped. Somehow, though, the Sheffield student had lived a perfectly normal life and went on to gain an honours degree in mathematics. This case is by no means as rare as it seems.

In 1970, a New Yorker died at the age of 35. He had left school with no academic achievements, but had worked at manual jobs such as building janitor, and was a popular figure in his neighbourhood. Tenants of the building where he worked described him as passing the days performing his routine chores, such as tending the boiler, and reading the tabloid newspapers. When an autopsy was performed to determine the cause of his premature death he, too, was found to have practically no brain at all.

Professor Lorber has identified several hundred people who have very small cerebral hemispheres but who appear to be normal intelligent individuals. Some of them he describes as having no detectable brain, yet they have scored up to 120 on IQ tests.

No-one knows how people with no detectable brain are able to function at all, let alone to graduate in mathematics, but there are a couple theories. One idea is that there is such a high level of redundancy of function in the normal brain that what little remains is able to learn to deputise for the missing hemispheres.

Another, similar, suggestion is the old idea that we only use a small percentage of our brains anyway perhaps as little as 10 per cent. The trouble with these ideas is that more recent research seems to contradict them. The functions of the brain have been mapped comprehensively and although there is some redundancy there is also a high degree of specialisation the motor area and the visual cortex being highly specific for instance. Similarly, the idea that we only use 10 per cent of our brain is a misunderstanding dating from research in the 1930s in which the functions of large areas of the cortex could not be determined and were dubbed silent, when in fact they are linked with important functions like speech and abstract thinking.

The other interesting thing about Lorber’s findings is that they remind us of the mystery of memory. At first it was thought that memory would have some physical substrate in the brain, like the memory chips in a PC. But extensive investigation of the brain has turned up the surprising fact that memory is not located in any one area or in a specific substrate. As one eminent neurologist put it, memory is everywhere in the brain and nowhere. But if the brain is not a mechanism for classifying and storing experiences and analysing them to enable us to live our lives then what on earth is the brain for?
And where is the seat of human intelligence? Where is the mind?

One of the few biologists to propose a radically novel approach to these questions is Dr Rupert Sheldrake. In his book "A New Science of Life" Sheldrake rejected the idea that the brain is a warehouse for memories and suggested it is more like a radio receiver for tuning into the past.

Memory is not a recording process in which a medium is altered to store records, but a journey that the mind makes into the past via the process of morphic resonance. Such a 'radio' receiver would require far fewer and less complex structures than a warehouse capable of storing and retrieving a lifetime of data.

But, of course, such a crazy idea couldn’t possibly be true, could it?

Author: Richard Milton

I just posted that same story as a headline on my own site as well.

I would like to know more about the methodology than the article mentions. This seems like an awfully tricky experiment. For example, I can see everything in this room I am in right now, but if you asked me about a specific item in five minutes, it is highly unlikely I'll remember it. How likely is it that a person who dies and is brought back to life will notice and then remember a picture posted on top of a cabinet? I mean, the person just DIED and is now looking down on himself. Is a picture posted on top of a cabinet for some science experiment likely to be of any interest at all to a disembodied consciousness suddenly aware of its disembodiment and of its body being medically attended to below?

My mind would be where the action is and on the extraordinary circumstances I suddenly became aware of, not what's on top of some cabinet.

I probably can't name five specific items in the room behind me I just looked at a moment ago. Does that mean I didn't see them?

And of course, any failure to get positive results will be proof to the materialists that consciousness cannot survive the death of the body.

I don't think the skeptics will be looking hard for methodological flaws in this study, unless it finds positive results.

Am I the only one who can see some kind of strange connection between NDE's and what Michael Talbot wrote about in his book The Holographic Universe? Why doesn't anybody ever comment on this? Normally when I post something about it my post is just completely ignored? The connection is not that difficult to see. It means to me that there is something extremely profound going on, something amazing. It's the most evidential thing about near death experiences. It just seems so obvious to me. When I read NDE's it just jumps right out at me. When Dr. Kenneth Ring taught a class on near death experiences at the University of Connecticut he required his students to read The Holographic Universe as well as his books, Life At Death, etc. Feelings of overwhelming oneness and connectedness, feeling like they are literally everywhere in the Universe at once, 360 degree vision, time and space not existing, having all knowledge, things being made out of light, during the life review feeling the emotions and telepathically hearing the thoughts of the people they interacted with, seeing colors they've never seen before and hearing sounds they've never heard, even overwhelming feelings of Love, are all by products or what one might expect in a holographic universe. It really is eerie because Talbot didn't write his book to specifically support NDE's but the connection between the two can not be easily explained away. I'm not sure it's even possible to fully understand NDE's without some grasp of how a hologram works.

In “The Romeo Error” biologist Lyall Watson examines where life begins and ends.

Here's a list of some of the many fascinating topics.

The inability of scientists to distinguish life from death.

The suggestion that death is a continuum rather than an event.

The concept that death should be treated as a disease, which is sometimes curable.

The unreliability of death tests that involve the heart, breath, temperature, pupil, brain waves, rigor mortis, and even putrefaction.

The fact that death is redefined whenever technological advances show that people who would have formerly been called dead, can now be called alive.

Evidence indicating the existence of a death cry at the cellular level, which can be received by other organisms at a distance.

Experiments that indicate a plant witnessing the murder of another plant can later identify the murderer by means of electrical responses.

The stages of dying.

Accounts of death by means of magic.

Studies showing that individuals are linked telepathically and that someone who is being thought about reacts with measurable physiological changes.

……and many other topics

I don't think the skeptics will be looking hard for methodological flaws in this study, unless it finds positive results

They'll try to debunk that research, and will defame the researchers to destroy their credibility. And they will invent methodological flaws to discredit that research (probably, the "dirty job" will be done by Ray Hyman or Richard Wiseman)

But I think it won't have any lasting effect in open mind scientists and general public. A large-scale scientific research will provide convincing evidence for any open mind critical person.

If the results are positive, "skeptics" will be seen as the tiny fundamentalist materialist group that they actually are. History will judge them as irrational bigots motived by an ideological pseudo-rationalistic agenda.

I think a open mind scientific journal (the equivalent of "The Skeptic" or "Skeptical Inquirer") is needed; because alternative investigations deserve to reach common scientists.

"Skeptics" are very smart, they direct their propaganda to professional scientists to predispose them against psi research. Parapsychologists and other psi researchers need to be smarter and expose the skeptics' clever propagandists tactics.

A scientific counterbalance to skeptical anti-psi propaganda is urgently needed in the scientific community.

Zetetic Chick wrote:

"I think a open mind scientific journal (the equivalent of "The Skeptic" or "Skeptical Inquirer") is needed; because alternative investigations deserve to reach common scientists."

The http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts.php>Journal for Scientific Exploration?

Hi Greg,

Yes, that Journal is a good one. In fact, I think that journal is the only one that explore topics about scientific anomalies from a open mind (and critical) scientific point of view.

But I don't know if that journal has, in the scientific community, the same influence than Skeptical Inquirer or "The Skeptic". I suspect that skeptical journals have more influence than JSE.

My point was to have a journal (like the JSE) with strong influence in the scientific community. If it occurs, it will be more difficult to skeptics to confuse and debunk unconventional claims supported by evidence.

Correction: the JSE isn't "the only one", but probably the "best one" that explore anomalies...

:)

what do people think of this?

Opps I forgot the link. Here is the link to a recently haunted house

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058890/We-like-family-The-Others-says-millionaire-fled-haunted-3-6m-mansion.html

ZC: I think JSE remains the best prospect. I don't think it's lack of popularity (in comparison to skeptical publications) is a consequence of anything but the so-called "respectability" of skepticism versus all that crazy weird stuff in JSE. The eternal battle for recognition...

"A scientific counterbalance to skeptical anti-psi propaganda is urgently needed in the scientific community."

I agree. I think genuinely curious scientific minds may feel intimidated by the more aggressively outspoken skeptical Phil Plaits of the world who are convinced A) That they know exactly what reality is, B) That knowledge of that reality comes to us exclusively through the scientific method, and C) who are offended by contrary claims of what reality is.

(It was Plait who wrote "I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way.")

Regarding the AWARE study, I am concerned about the methodology. For example, if they are assuming that an out of body consciousness will actually see——not just be capable of seeing——something posted on top of a cabinet, and draw a negative conclusion for the phenomenon based on negative witness results, then such a crucial assumption is deeply flawed. If there were some way of assigning a participant to hold a numbered paddle above the recently deceased, and without the deceased having any other way of knowing what that number is, then we could at least be assured that his disembodied consciousness would see it.

Zetetic Chick:

Also, I think dogmatic skeptics are more clever than they are wise. Like many other true believers, they suffer from premature exclamation.

AN INTERESTING NDE & REGARDING CURRENT EVENTS. WILLIAM, I'M SURE YOU WON'T AGREE WITH THIS ONE, AS THE SPIRITUAL BEINGS TELL HIM THAT WE DO HAVE FREE WILL, IT'S NOT AN ILLUSION AS YOU AND YOUR ENLIGHTENED HINDUS (NEW AGE) THINK IT IS...It is from Howard Storm:

For a time there was a sense of being unconscious or asleep. I'm not sure how long it lasted, but I felt really strange, and I opened my eyes. To my surprise I was standing up next to the bed, and I was looking at my body laying in the bed. My first reaction was, "This is crazy! I can't be standing here looking down at myself. That's not possible." This wasn't what I expected, this wasn't right. Why was I still alive? I wanted oblivion. Yet I was looking at a thing that was my body, and it just didn't have that much meaning to me.

Now knowing what was happening, I became upset. I started yelling and screaming at my wife, and she just sat there like a stone. She didn't look at me, she didn't move – and I kept screaming profanities to get her to pay attention. Being confused, upset, and angry, I tried to get the attention of my room-mate, with the same result. He didn't react. I wanted this to be a dream, and I kept saying to myself, "This has got to be a dream."

But I knew that it wasn't a dream. I became aware that strangely I felt more alert, more aware, more alive than I had ever felt in my entire life. All my senses were extremely acute. Everything felt tingly and alive. The floor was cool and my bare feet felt moist and clammy. This had to be real. I squeezed my fists and was amazed at how much I was feeling in my hands just by making a fist.
Then I heard my name. I heard, “Howard – come here. "Wondering, at first, where it was coming from, I discovered that it was originating in the doorway. There were different voices calling me. I asked who they were, and they said, "We are here to take care of you. We will fix you up. Come with us." Asking, again, who they were, I asked them if they were doctors and nurses. They responded, "Quick, come see. You'll find out."

As I asked them questions they gave evasive answers. They kept giving me a sense of urgency, insisting that I should step through the doorway. I repeatedly asked them where we were going, and they responded, "Hurry up, you'll find out." They wouldn't answer anything. The only response was insisting that I hurry up and follow them. They told me repeatedly that my pain was meaningless and unnecessary. "Pain is bullshit," they said.

Then, others would seem to caution the aggressive ones. It seemed that I could hear them warn the aggressive ones to be careful or I would be frightened away. All my communication with them took place verbally just as ordinary human communication occurs. They didn't appear to know what I was thinking, and I didn't know what they were thinking. What was increasingly obvious was that they were liars and help was farther away the more I stayed with them.

Finally, I told them that I wouldn't go any farther. At that time they changed completely. They became much more aggressive and insisted that I was going with them. A number of them began to push and shove me, and I responded by hitting back at them. A wild orgy of frenzied taunting, screaming and hitting ensued. I fought like a wild man. All the while it was obvious that they were having great fun.
It seemed to be, almost, a game for them, with me as the center-piece of their amusement. My pain became their pleasure. They seemed to want to make me hurt – by clawing at me and biting me. Whenever I would get one off me, there were five more to replace the one.

By this time it was almost complete darkness, and I had the sense that instead of there being twenty or thirty, there were an innumerable host of them. Each one seemed set on coming in for the sport they got from hurting me. My attempts to fight back only provoked greater merriment. They began to physically humiliate me in the most degrading ways. As I continued to fight on and on, I was aware that they weren't in any hurry to win. They were playing with me just as a cat plays with a mouse.
At no time did I ever have any sense that the beings who seduced and attacked me were anything other than human beings. The voice told me to pray to God. It was a dilemma since I didn't know how. The voice told me a third time to pray to God. And these people went into a frenzy, as if I had thrown boiling oil all over them. They began yelling and screaming at me, telling me to quit, that there was no God, and no one could hear me. While they screamed and yelled obscenities, they also began backing away from me – as if I were poison. As they were retreating, they became more rabid, cursing and screaming that what I was saying was worthless and that I was a coward.

When the light came near, its radiance spilled over me, and I just rose up – not with my effort – I just lifted up. Then I saw – and I saw this very plainly – I saw all my wounds, all my tears, all my brokenness, melt away. We began to engage in thought exchange, conversation that was very natural, very easy and casual. I heard their voices clearly and individually. They each had a distinct personality with a voice, but they spoke directly to my mind, not my ears. And they used normal, colloquial English. Everything I thought, they knew.

Next, they wanted to talk about my life. To my surprise my life played out before me, maybe six or eight feet in front of me, from beginning to end. The life review was very much in their control, and they showed me my life, but not from my point of view. I saw me in my life – and this whole thing was a lesson, even though I didn't know it at the time. They were trying to teach me something, but I didn't know it was a teaching experience, because I didn't know that I would be coming back.
We just watched my life from beginning to the end. Some things they slowed down on, and zoomed in on and other things they went right through. My life was shown in a way that I had never thought of before. All of the things that I had worked to achieve, the recognition that I had worked for, in elementary school, in high school, in college, and in my career, they meant nothing in this setting.
I could feel their feelings of sorrow and suffering, or joy, as my life's review unfolded. They didn't say much, but I could feel it. And I could sense all those things they were indifferent to. They didn't, for example, look down on my high school shot-put record. They just didn't feel anything towards it, nor towards other things which I had taken so much pride in.

The therapy was their love, because my life's review kept tearing me down. It was pitiful to watch, just pitiful. I couldn't believe it. And the thing is, it got worse as it went on. My stupidity and selfishness as a teenager only magnified as I became an adult – all under the veneer of being a good husband, a good father, and a good citizen. The hypocrisy of it all was nauseating.

When the review was finished they asked, "Do you want to ask any questions?" and I had a million questions. I asked, for example, "What about the Bible?" They responded, "What about it?" I asked if it was true, and they said it was. Asking them why it was that when I tried to read it, all I saw were contradictions, they took me back to my life's review again – something that I had overlooked. They showed me, for the few times I had opened the Bible, that I had read it with the idea of finding contradictions and problems. I was trying to prove to myself that it wasn't worth reading.
I observed to them that the Bible wasn't clear to me. It didn't make sense. They told me that it contained spiritual truth, and that I had to read it spiritually in order to understand it. It should be read prayerfully. My friends informed me that it was not like other books. They also told me, and I later found out this was true, that when you read it prayerfully, it talks to you. It reveals itself to you. And you don't have to work at it anymore.

My friends answered lots of questions in funny ways. They really knew the whole tone of what I asked them, even before I got the questions out. When I thought of questions in my head, they really understood them. I asked them, for example, which was the best religion. I was looking for an answer which was like, "Presbyterians." I figured these guys were all Christians. The answer I got was, "The best religion is the religion that brings you closest to God."
Asking them if there was life on other planets, their surprising answer was that the universe was full of life. Because of my fear of a nuclear holocaust I asked if there was going to be a nuclear war in the world, and they said no. That astonished me, and I gave them this extensive explanation of how I had lived under the threat of nuclear war. They said, "No, there isn't going to be any nuclear war."
I asked if they were absolutely sure there wasn't going to be nuclear war. They reassured me again, and I asked them how they could be so sure. Their response was: "God loves the world." They explained to me that their concern was for all the people of the world. They weren't interested in one group getting ahead of other groups. They want every person to consider every other person greater than their own flesh. They want everyone to love everyone else, completely; more, even, than they love themselves. If someone, someplace else in the world hurts, than we should hurt – we should feel their pain. And we should help them.

When I spoke with them about the future, and this might sound like a cop-out on my part, they made clear to me that we have free will.

If we change the way we are, then we can change the future which they showed me. They showed me a view of the future, at the time of my experience, based upon how we in the United States were behaving at that time. It was a future in which a massive worldwide depression would occur. If we were to change our behavior, however, then the future would be different.
Asking them how it would be possible to change the course of many people, I observed that it was difficult, if not impossible, to change anything on Earth. I expressed the opinion that it was a hopeless task to try.

My friends explained, quite clearly, that all it takes to make a change was one person. One person, trying, and then because of that, another person changing for the better. They said that the only way to change the world was to begin with one person. One will become two, which will become three, and so on. That's the only way to affect a major change.

I inquired as to where the world would be going in an optimistic future – one where some of the changes they desired were to take place. The image of the future that they gave me then, and it was their image, not one that I created, surprised me. My image had previously been sort of like Star Wars, where everything was space age, plastics, and technology. The future that they showed me was almost no technology at all.

What everybody, absolutely everybody, in this euphoric future spent most of their time doing was raising children. The chief concern of people was children, and everybody considered children to be the most precious commodity in the world. And when a person became an adult, there was no sense of anxiety, nor hatred, nor competition. There was this enormous sense of trust and mutual respect. If a person, in this view of the future, became disturbed, then the community of people all cared about the disturbed person falling away from the harmony of the group. Spiritually, through prayer and love, the others would elevate the afflicted person.

What people did with the rest of their time was that they gardened, with almost no physical effort. They showed me that plants, with prayer, would produce huge fruits and vegetables. People, in unison, could control the climate of the planet through prayer. People, in this best of all worlds, weren't interested in knowledge; they were interested in wisdom. This was because they were in a position where anything they needed to know, in the knowledge category, they could receive simply through prayer. Everything, to them, was solvable.

Death, in this world, was a time when the individual had experienced everything that he or she needed to experience. To die meant to lie down and let go; then the spirit would rise up, and the community would gather around. There would be a great rejoicing, because they all had insight into the heavenly realm, and the spirit would join with the angels that came down to meet it. They could see the spirit leave and knew that it was time for the spirit to move on; it had outgrown the need for growth in this world. Individuals who died had achieved all they were capable of in this world in terms of love, appreciation, understanding, and working in harmony with others, and they would not return to live the earth life ever again.

In Howard Storm's book, "My Descent into Death" (2000), Storm describes the future of mankind as given to him by light beings he encountered during his NDE in 1985. Storm tells how they told him, in 1985, that the Cold War would soon end, because "God is changing the hearts of people to love around the world." Storm states, "Since the time in 1985 when I was told these things about the future the Cold War ended with little bloodshed due to the hearts of people being unwilling to tolerate oppressive regimes."

The light beings replied, "The United States has been given the opportunity to be the teacher for the world, but much is expected of those to whom much has been given. The United States has been given more of everything than any country in the history of the world and it has failed to be generous with the gifts. If the United States continues to exploit the rest of the world by greedily consuming the world's resources, the United States will have God's blessing withdrawn. Your country will collapse economically which will result in civil chaos. Because of the greedy nature of the people, you will have people killing people for a cup of gasoline. The world will watch in horror as your country is obliterated by strife. The rest of the world will not intervene because they have been victims of your exploitation. They will welcome the annihilation of such selfish people. The United States must change immediately and become the teachers of goodness and generosity to the rest of the world. Today the United States is the primary merchant of war and the culture of violence that you export to the world. This will come to an end because you have the seeds of your own destruction within you. Either you will destroy yourselves or God will bring it to an end if there isn't a change."


AND A BIT MORE FROM THAT NDE:

I asked my friend, and his friends, about death – what happens when we die?

They said that when a loving person dies, angels come down to meet him, and they take him up – gradually, at first, because it would be unbearable for that person to be instantly exposed to God.
Knowing what's inside of every person, the angels don't have to prove anything by showing off. They know what each of us needs, so they provide that. In some cases it may be a heavenly meadow, and in another, something else. If a person needs to see a relative, the angels will bring that relative. If the person really likes jewels, they will show the person jewels.

We see what is necessary for our introduction into the spirit world, and those things are real, in the heavenly, the divine sense..They gradually educate us as spirit beings, and bring us into heaven. We grow and increase, and grow and increase, and shed the concerns, desires, and stuff that we have been fighting much of our life. This happens to loving people, people who are good and love God. They made it clear to me that we don't have any knowledge in terms of that person's heart relationship to God. Someone whom we think is despicable, God might know as a wonderful person. Similarly, someone we think is good, God may see as a hypocrite, with a black heart.

And God will allow people to be dragged into darkness with like-minded creatures. I deserved to be where I was – I was in the right place at the right time. That was the place for me, and the people I was around were perfect company for me. God allowed me to experience that, and then removed me, because he saw something redeeming in putting me through the experience. It was a way to purge me. People who are not allowed to be pulled into darkness, because of their loving nature, are attracted upwards, toward the light. I was not in heaven. It was way out in the suburbs, and these are the things that they showed me. We talked for a long time, about many things, and then I looked at myself. When I saw me, I was glowing, I was radiant. I was becoming beautiful – not nearly as beautiful as them – but I had a certain sparkle that I never had before.

I knew that they loved me and knew everything about me. I knew that everything was going to be okay from now on. I asked if I could get rid of my body, which was definitely a hindrance, and become a being like them with the powers they had shown me.

They said, "No, you have to go back." They explained to me that I was very underdeveloped and that it would be of great benefit to return to my physical existence to learn. In my human life I would have an opportunity to grow so that the next time I was with them I would be more compatible. I would need to develop important characteristics to become like them and to be involved with the work that they do.

Some of my self-centeredness welled up and I said, "No way. I'm not going back." They said, "There are people who care about you; your wife, your children, your mother and father. You should go back for them. Your children need your help." Presenting my biggest argument against coming back into the world, I told them that it would break my heart, and I would die, if I had to leave them and their love. Coming back would be so cruel, I said, that I couldn't stand it. I mentioned that the world was filled with hate and competition, and I didn't want to return to that maelstrom. I couldn't bear to leave them.

My friends observed that they had never been apart from me. I explained that I hadn't been aware of their presence, and if I went back I, again, wouldn't know they were there. Explaining how to communicate with them, they told me to get myself quiet, inside, and to ask for their love; then that love would come, and I would know they were there. After that explanation I ran out of arguments, and I said I thought I could go back. And, just like that, I was back. Returning to my body, the pain was there, only worse than before."

“Does it stop after 10 min., after half an hour, after an hour? And at this point we don't know.”

From my point of view a better description would be we have not removed all doubt for most people.

But I do agree we may need a new approach to discovering the way of life and remove most doubt for most people.

A material world creates a very “matter only” paradigm in hindering both our approach to validating psychic phenomena and removing doubt.

From my point of view this is the best explanation of man’s free will I have found.

“Man is not a creature of blind circumstance or environment; no more is he a free moral agent in the sense of possessing a will that gives him an option in life. He represents the law of progress in his evolution, the change from potential to the dynamic……..thus he has no will of his own other than the inherent tendency to express himself and this is NECESSITY.
He is not a blind sport of environment, for the potentiality inheres in him, not in his surroundings, and the necessity lies in his relation to the external, not in its relation to him.”

The open door by Theon Wright. Page 187.

The ego loves the concept of free will, as do religions and governments and just about everyone. What could be more comforting to the ego than it believing it has free will and in absolute control of its fate and destiny?

I personally prefer the term “choices within boundaries.” What are those boundaries? Unawareness. But as we expand those boundaries we become more aware of our spiritual Being and “attain” greater levels of love and divine intelligence.

Well William, I guess your source of information is "smarter" than the sources who provided information to Howard Storm. To be expected. You seem to have found the "smart" ones.

Typical "new age"...no reason for responsibility in any way, groovy man...if it feels good do it, hey don't knock it until you've tried it, there is no standard at all, everything is relativism. Hmmm.

HERE IS SOME NEW AGE "WISDOM"....

"We can create new life forms and new worlds. We are gods!"[33] Neale Donald Walsch says the same: "Trust God. Or if you wish, trust yourself, for Thou Art God." As a woman devotee of Walsch's recently told the Washington Post, "We discovered the God within ... That's why we need God. Because we are God."

Walsch's celestial confidant told him that: "There's no such thing as the Ten Commandments. ... God's Law is No Law." As a result, Walsch's god approves of sexual activity by children and teenagers, saying "In enlightened societies offspring are never discouraged, reprimanded, or 'corrected' when they begin to find early delight in the nature of their very being. ... Sexual functions are also seen and treated as totally natural, totally wonderful, and totally okay." Walsch's goblin does not say whether the enlightened little ones are doing it solo, with their friends, with their siblings, or with adults.

Barbara Marx Hubbard says, "The break-up of the 20th century procreative family structure is a vital perturbation needed for the breakthrough of the 21st century cocreative family structure." For the sake of the Divine Self, Neale Donald Walsch denounces fidelity and marriage vows: "Betrayal of yourself in order not to betray another is Betrayal nonetheless. It is the Highest Betrayal." Why is it the ‘highest betrayal’? Because it’s all about you, remember? Indeed, family members who won't move into the New Age should be left behind. Barbara Marx Hubbard says, "But if members of our family choose to remain where they are, we have no moral obligation to suppress our own potential on their behalf. In fact the suppression of our own potential is more 'immoral' than growing beyond our biological relationships." Think about what has just been stated here by this woman… Once our bodies, minds, and souls are drained dry by free sex and trafficking with the spirit world, we can - and ought to - choose to die. As Barbara Marx Hubbard says, "Those who have more to create choose to live on until they are finished with their work. When we feel that our creativity has run its course, we gracefully choose to die. In fact, it seems unethical and foolish to live on."

G. K. Chesterton warns those who wander after this will-o'-the-wisp: "Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all the horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. ... That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones."

As Neale Donald Walsch says, "Hitler went to heaven, there is no place else for him to go." After all, according to Walsch's incubus, Hitler was doing his victims a favour by killing them; his deeds were "mistakes," not crimes: "The mistakes Hitler made did no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused. Those souls were released from their earthly bondage, like butterflies emerging from a cocoon. ... When you see the utter perfection in everything - not just in those things with which you agree, but (and perhaps especially) those things with which you disagree - you achieve mastery." Really? The price of "mastery" is to see "utter perfection" in Auschwitz and Treblinka? David Spangler's spirit friend, an entity named "John," likewise said, "... The death of millions of people in itself is not a tragedy for us, for it simply means their birth into our domains."

Walsch's "god" says that Hitler does not deserve blame for his acts - but the rest of humanity is responsible for allowing them to happen; Didn’t we stop him? "The purpose of the Hitler Experience was to show humanity to itself."[70] Walsch's imp repeats what Alice Bailey said in September 1939, as World War II began: "Blame not the personalities involved ... They are only the product of the past and the victims of the present. At the same time, they are the agents of destiny, the creators of the new order and the initiators of the new civilisation; they are the destroyers of what must be destroyed before humanity can go forward along the Lighted Way. They are the embodiment of the personality of humanity. Blame yourselves, therefore, for what is today transpiring."[71] A similar argument has been common for a generation in American courtrooms: the criminal is not accountable for his evil deeds; instead, "society" - everybody else - is guilty.

Instead, as Barbara Marx Hubbard says, "Your highest spiritual beings, even now, are telling you that each of you has access to an inner teacher ... They tell you that through a process called 'initiation,' you can transform yourself into an 'ascended master'." (Perhaps "initiation" is more dangerous than Ms. Hubbard lets on; Alice Bailey says, "each contact with the Initiator leads the initiate closer to the centre of pure darkness." Walsch's god does not favor obedience to God's will: "Obedience is not growth, and growth is what I desire." Instead, the spook offers this alternative: "No kind of evolution ever took place through denial. If you are to evolve, it will not be because you've been able to successfully deny yourself things you know 'feel good,' but because you've granted yourself these pleasures - and found something even greater. For how can you know that something is 'greater' if you've never tasted the 'lesser'?" Groovy! Do your own thing, man! Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

The New Age avatars proclaim their commitment to democracy and tolerance. However, they propose totalitarian solutions to mankind's urgent, undeniable problems. The sacrifice of freedom and the acceptance of unlimited government power will - as always - be for our own good; necessity will be the excuse of tyrants. The New Age movement uses the theory of evolution - a theory of inevitable and desirable Progress - as a justification for whatever policies are needed to drive humanity and the planet to the next great leap upward.

Alice Bailey viewed the dictatorships of her time as a positive part of human evolution, fostering humanity's "power to regard himself as part of a whole." Alice Bailey criticized the Stalinist regime in the USSR but said that "The true communistic platform is sound; it is brotherhood in action and it does not - in its original platform - run counter to the spirit of Christ." It doesn’t?

Neale Donald Walsch's spirit guide also favors communism and world government. The “god” says that highly evolved beings - smart ETs - practice pure communism: Nations must disappear. Instead, there should be a world government, backed up with a World Court and a world "peacekeeping force." Each nation would have two representatives in the Congress of Nations, and "representation in direct proportion to a nation's population" in the People's Assembly. Under this plan, the U.S. would have as many votes in the Congress of Nations as the Sudan, where Christians are sold into slavery or executed. The U.S. would have about one-fourth as many votes in the People's Assembly as the People's Republic of China, which persecutes Christians and enforces a one-child policy on families. Would anyone care to guess how long our Constitutional protections of freedom of religion and freedom of speech (which are already under seige) would survive?

The basis of the Earth Charter is the belief that "Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life." The Charter asks us to "treat all living beings with compassion and protect them from cruelty and wanton destruction." (So far, so good.) However, unborn children are excluded from this compassion; the Charter supports "universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction." (In UN circles, "reproductive health" includes abortion, and sterilization.)

It might seem odd to accuse the New Age prophets of these things. After all, they and their followers appear to be nice, well-cultured people who use the correct fork at the dinner table; they claim that their goal is the betterment of the human race and of the Earth. Nevertheless, these radical New Age leaders believe that the two World Wars were necessary for human evolution, and that the birth pangs of the New Age began with the atomic explosions in 1945. They also advocate sending those people who are unwilling to enter the New Age into oblivion, and reducing world population to 2 billion - or less. Such is the blood lust of the "compassionate."

All of this flows from the Gnostic belief expressed by Alice Bailey:
"Death is not a disaster to be feared; the work of the Destroyer is not really cruel or undesirable."
The New Age avatars have embraced a brutal version of spiritual Darwinism. As Barbara Marx Hubbard says,
"Nature is less concerned about individual survival, than with the evolution of the whole to ever higher degrees of freedom and union.”
David Spangler's familiar spirit says that suffering is merely part of "a world of form" that "has little meaning;" the spirit is "concerned with that which is the eternal life of you, the Divine Presence which I nourish and embrace. If forms must be destroyed that this Presence be released, then so be it."

Jean Houston, spiritual mentor of Lauren Artress (the Episcopal priest who runs the Labyrinth Project at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco) announces the choice facing humanity: "It could be that the human race will end as a vast, failed experiment within the next twenty-five years. And the planet will shake its shoulders, let 'em slide off and the dolphins will inherit the earth." Barbara Marx Hubbard likewise offers the alternative: "We will either evolve or become extinct." William Irwin Thompson, a New Age associate of the Rev. James Parks Morton and David Spangler, said: "We might even end it for human beings and not be able to keep the experiment going, but the biosphere will not cease to evolve. If you're mystical, you don't necessarily identify just with a momentary piece of meat called hominoids."

As part of the imminent global transformation, the radical New Age leaders look forward to a "selection" of the human race. The “elect” of humanity will survive to enter the New Age. Many others will die - a prospect that these gurus view with cold equanimity. Why? Because they couldn’t “evolve” and so they should die off.
Alice Bailey saw war and mass murder as part of God's plan, it's reasonable to ask whether other Theosophists and New Age leaders who foretell a "selection process" intend to kill their opponents, if they can.

Barbara Marx Hubbard has predicted "personal extinction"[224] for people who will not get with the New Age program. In referring to undesirable people as "elements," she follows the example of the Nazis, the Communists, and others who dehumanize their opponents to justify destroying them. For her, "it is part of the selection process ... that will bring forth the self-elected from the self-rejected, so that ... only those connected to the whole survive." Robert Muller says that persons "who hold contrary beliefs" to those favored in the "next phase of evolution" will disappear.

All the New Age soothsayers say that the extinction of the opposition is for their own good, the beginning of their cosmic re-education. David Spangler says that those not attuned to New Age energy "have no place in the new world";

The leaders of the New Age movement argue that the earth is overpopulated, and that radical measures are needed to defuse the "population bomb." Some of these "forward-thinking" people want to go further, and reduce Earth's population to 2 billion or less. In a November 1991 interview with The UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau said: "World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable." That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people to "eliminate" per decade. Media magnate Ted Turner is more patient; he will allow 80 to 100 years to reduce the population of the Earth from 6 billion to 2 billion by a global "voluntary" one-child policy.

The eco-feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether has a similarly low view of humanity. She told those who attended a May 1998 ecological conference that "We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people. ... In place of the pro-life movement we need to develop the 'spirituality of recycling' ... a spirituality that includes ourselves in the renewal of earth and self. We need to compost ourselves." Several months later, Ruether told a national conference of Call To Action, a liberal Catholic organization, how many people must go onto the compost pile: "We must return to the population level of 1930" - about 2 billion people. What the supporters of population reduction leave discreetly unannounced is how to get rid of the 4 billion "surplus" people.


So tell me William...since you sometimes speak of your grand daughter, and according to Donald Walsch's new age "god"...who would you like to see your grand daughter "discover" herself with and have sex with first? Would it matter what age they were? Would it matter if it was a relative? After all, "god" says its ok and is to be encouraged, doesn't he? It's not her free will, she is just expressing herself, right?

One other thing...though I'm not pushing religion with this comment, only making a point...since the new age enlightened ones speak with such compassion for Hitler and other criminals...I am often surprised to see them have such harsh words for clergy who abused children! Wouldn't you extend the same relativistic attitude towards those clergy that you do for the likes of Adolf Hitler?

This would be the problem with any major paradigm shifts. You have to make sure that responsible people are at the forefront. After all, for every genuine medium, there are three disingenuous ones.

Anyway, Anonymous, that's a cheap shot about William's granddaughter. William always presents himself politely and eloquently and never claims to 'know' the answers. How about revealing your name and just being a little less offensive? Just a thought.

Point respectfully taken Major. On the contrary though, William makes comments all the time about the illusion of free will, comments distinguishing between rational and irrational minds, and comments regarding enlightened souls constantly. I still defend my post on the new age because it seems to me that William and many others like him, are quick to point out everyone else's "ignorance"...so my post and question to him and all the others is relevant because I think they should take a reality check on their "gods" and see how it applies to their own lives before they comment so openly and freely about others. I also think it is a valid question about the clergy as well...when people can sypmathize with heinous criminals I'm not sure I see why they don't sympathize with ALL criminals the same way. It seems like hypocrisy at it's finest. I, for one, think the new age is, in many ways, dangerous..for just a few of the things I have pointed out, which I see as valid, because it cultivates a "me" society, judges others as less "enlightened" and doesn't look itself in the mirror. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Incidentally, R.C. Hogan is another one who is VERY willing to sympathize with heinous criminals, just view his forums...yet, he is the same one who sees other "sins" as something he should point out and rail against. Why? Doesn't he apply the same standard to all? Why is someone like Hitler not as disgusting as clergy who abuse kids? Surely being at the helm of a regim that killed millions of people would qualify for the same kind of condemnation as abusive clergy would, not?

Anonymous, you make some interesting points. There are potential problems that would arise if the New Age movement became more accepted.

For example, medicine, education, law and order... Let's take medicine for instance. Yes, there will be examples of alternative medicine becoming practised more frequently, and having positive results. However, the con artists would soon crawl out of the woodwork offering fake treatments etc. It's fair to say that's true now, so imagine on a wider scale.

These are questions that are important, and are maybe the next stage in our education if we feel questions regarding the existence of telepathy and survival have been answered to a sufficient level.

If the New Age movement meant that no one was accountable for their crimes, I think we're better off where we are now because at least we're trying.

Also, Anonymous, please use a name. It doesn't have to be your real one. After all, my birth certificate doesn't read 'The Major' (though at times I wish it did). It just gives us a handle to speak to you with.

"It seems like hypocrisy at it's finest."

As a friend of mine once said: 'Hypocrisy is the vaseline of political intercourse'.

All right Major, just call me "Dick" :)

The new age is exactly the same as radical fundamentalism...except it doesn't think that it is, it sees itself as different from that...more "enlightened". It's easy to see why Walsch's "god" has no regard for the killing of millions, because they are evolving and will be reincarnated!

After all, we don't really exist, we only think we do. It's all an illusion. Based on this theosophy nothing really matters except what is good for "you".

There are no appropriate or inappropriate choices, it's only about what you can "experience". Hence, the death of millions or just one, means nothing. After all, it's only evolution.

When a clergy abuses a child people are infuriated and new agers proudly point out the "redundancy" of religion...yet they can justify the likes of Adolf Hitler.

These people should think about whether or not they would be thrilled for one of their 60 year old relatives to be having sex with their 11 year old child. According to Walsch's "god" it would be a time to rejoice! After all, there is no free will, and "god" desires growth not standards, so why not encourage both of them to continue on? In fact, why not encourage them as much as possible? After all, there are no inappropriate choices, it's all relative, just because it's "wrong" today doesn't mean it will be wrong tomorrow right?

It's also not at all surprising that so many people are embracing this concept, because it seems that the one thing that more and more people are becoming interested in the most, is...THEMSELVES. And the new age promotes this to the fullest.

So, calling all new agers...let's get together and say it..."those poor pedophiles, it's not their fault, it's our fault too. Please, nobody interfere with them and the children's evolution."

Or perhaps we should just kill them all because it doesn't really matter anyway?

After all, even when it comes to pedophilia..."god" loves a "good show", right?

I think I can understand where 'Anonymous' is coming from. Robert Pirsig’s character in Lilla (follow-up to Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) analyses society into 3 structures – the biological, the social and the intellectual. He praises the Victorian model of the moral society, which kept the biological (-virtually synonymous with ‘selfish’ or ‘savage’) in check. He says the intellectual elite sided with the biological (urge for freedom of expression) in the 1950s and 1960s to overthrow the moribund Victorian social order, and claims that this has led to unstoppable rising crime, because there is no longer a social consensus for repressive measures (as would be enforced by the police and politicians if they had intellectual support).

The New Age that ‘Anonymous’ refers to is actually still a part of that ongoing revolution to undermine moral absolutes. Pirsig suggests that to turn society around and create a new consensus, intellectuals must always side with the ‘social’ order over chaotic ‘biological’ self-expression. In support, he says that children brought up before the fifties and sixties were altogether nicer than children today (! -I suppose the standard response to this would be that the underclass still existed in Victorian times, but was kept under control and out of harm’s way.)

I mention this because Pirsig is highly intelligent (IQ 170) and has been a cultural trendsetter, and also because it is highly unusual these days to find any intellectual prepared to buck the trend and call for moral order as society’s first priority. (The only ones who seem to do this are religious fundamentalists – we don’t have any of those in Britain, but I note that you do across the pond!)

No free will? I could choose, this very hour, to go buy a new Cadillac. I could choose to go buy a house right now and I have the funds to do just that.

I could also choose to kill my wife or anyone else for that matter, if I so desired to. There is nothing stopping my free will choice to do anything that I wish.

What would happen is that there would be a reaction to my actions. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And it is up to me to bear the consequences of my actions.

If I buy too many Cadillacs and houses I won't have anymore money. If I were to kill my wife or anyone else, I will be imprisoned or face capital punishment. This speaks entirely of "personal accountability" and "as you sow, so shall you reap". And so it should.

Responsibility for actions is a NECESSITY. It is a way to learn, relativism teaches nothing except that it's ok to do whatever feels good because it's about the experience and nothing more. BS.

Seems to me that the only "illusion" here is the one William and the new agers are under.

I have noticed that William (as do many new agers)likes to "cherry pick" out of the Bible, regarding Jesus, and dismiss everything that doesn't suit their fancy as rubbish. Yet, it is written that the same Jesus said this:

(Mat 5:21) "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'
(Mat 5:26) Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Relativism? I think not. A standard? Certainly. Rubbish? Only if you "believe" it is. Does it speak of free will and consequences? It certainly seems to.

And it seems ironic that the NDE of Howard Storm seems to imply "love" yet "accountability" based on YOU. The "levels" that most mediums speak of seems to make sense, you will go where you fit. Perfect justice. The "beings" in Storm's NDE clearly spoke of "free will", a choice to improve things or not to. It is up to us. Yet, if it doesn't fit with new age theosophy, then those "beings" become "stupid". I, for one, wonder who the "stupid" ones are.

Oh the power and deception of the ego.

Just challenge the idea that the ego may not be what it is thought and taught to be and people even attack a precious granddaughter a 3 year old. Only a grandparent understands how precious grandchildren are. :-)

These attacks are based in ignorance (unawareness) not divine intelligence. Also the ego loathes being called ignorant. This reality shows the very insecurity of our egos. I have read that our spiritual journey begins with our recognition of our ignorance.

This person proved my point beyond any doubt but who will be able to see that in themselves. The ego wants control of its fate and destiny. The destiny of the soul is fixed. I.e. closed system that appears totally open to the ego.

It may take some souls longer to arrive back “home” due to the choices that soul makes on its journey but it cannot opt out of that journey to express the potential (unfoldment) of that which created that soul and the universal laws that soul must participate in.

The ego will project its doubt as attacks on others to protect its idea that it is in control of its destiny. The ego wants to be a separate self, totally separate from it source. Our greatest fear is that we are not separate but part of a whole and the idea of free will support’s the idea that the ego is separate.

What would religion and political ideologies be without the concept of free will? I will say it again the ego loves the concept of free will as it wants complete control of the choices it makes in life. Always keep in mind the origin of our ignorance is innocence.

Hard to fathom but our attacks on others is in innocence of our true reality. But in defense of the ego we (egos) “enrich the whole and participate in its enfoldment.”

William, get off the soap box. Attack your grand daughter? How? I simply compared her to the wisdom of Donald Walsch's "god", didn't I? Nothing more. Yet, you have taken offence and choose to attempt to belittle me for doing so!

I noticed that you never addressed any of the points that I posted with specifics, all you did was to add more of your new age theosophy. A feeble response.

More babble about "ego" and "free will illusion". I proved your point beyond a doubt? Really? I think YOU proved MY point entirely.

You don't have any solid answers to the legitimate points brought up, which is why you chose to babble further about your theosophy, it's a way to sidestep everything.

It seems that your greatest fear, William, is someone pointing out the weaknesses in your theosophy, which causes you to resort to the typical "ignorance (ok unawareness)" that you usually do. I suggest you stop, turn, and look in the mirror and ask yourself the hard questions. Do you encourage relations with childres as positive growth? Do you have the same compassion for pedophiles as you do with Hitler, when your own grand daughter is involved?

Why not address issues specifically instead of adding more mush and relying on your theosophy of "ignorance"? The points outlined in my initial post is not about anything except "specifics"..when you want to deal with them, then confront me about my "ego" and "ignorance".

I have read that our spiritual journey begins with our recognition of our ignorance.

I've never read anything that you have posted that speaks of your own ignorance...only the ignorance of others.

"The beginning of wisdom is the admission of one's ignorance." Socrates

The full quote from yesterday from the book the open door page 187.

“No matter what may be his environment, or the circumstances which cause and effect bring to bear upon him, he yet will carry on the process as the Law of his Being, in accord with the primal and inherent soul qualities of which he is possessed. He is not only a manifestation of that cause which gives rise to all expression, but is a phase of the reality which is inexpressible in any other way. Thus he has no will of his own other that the inherent tendency to express himself and this is NECESSITY.”

Furthermore, I'm not concerned about my "ego" at all William, this is nothing more than your own assumption.

What I am concerned about, is the lack of desire of so many people to reach for any kind of a standard that might not always be convenient for themselves. This does concern me. And as I see it, this is a large factor in the acceptance of people in general, to accept the new age mush.

It lets them off the hook whenever they want to be let off the hook. Things aren't about "others", it becomes about "themselves".

This was my motivation for posting, not my fragile "ego" as you so eloquently put it. I didn't prove your point at all, you only THOUGHT that you knew what my point was and you were wrong. Don't give yourself so much credit.

Tell us about YOUR ignorance for a change...not everyone else's. Try that once in awhile.

Here William, I've given you a long list of points to deal with in my posts that require more than your brand of theosophy going around in circles. But here's the first, just start here and refute this:

When I spoke with them about the future, and this might sound like a cop-out on my part, they made clear to me that we have free will.

Howard Storm's is one of the most profound NDEs on record...start with that statement, and point out to all, why the "beings" are simply...wrong. And no more vague theosophy either...hit it home and tell us all why those "beings" are WRONG. Do it. Then deal with all of the rest, point by point please.

Hey, Anonymous! Take a hike. You belong on a fundamentalist blog. Howard Storm's is one NDE among many, and we only have your word for it that it's the most profound. It's not typical. And aside from that, it's totally OFF TOPIC.

Come on, Teri, I recall when you first joined this blog, you asked some tough questions. Dick is merely doing the same. Admittedly, it's off topic but it wouldn't be the first time it's happened here.

Some interesting questions have been asked so it may be interesting to try an answer.

And Dick, look sorry to keep telling you what to do, so to speak, but try writing one comment at a time otherwise you end up just dominating the post. Just take your time, no one is going anywhere.

Hi Teri! Thanks for the love you expressed. I belong on a fundamentalist blog? Why? I'm not pro new age?

You don't have to take my word for it..find out for yourself!

Also, I thought a profound NDE would be considered on topic, at least somewhat. It was William, by the way, who provided information contradicting the "spirits" with nothing to support it except theosophy...I merely disagreed, do you have a problem with that? Do you have a problem with someone, other than yourself, being direct?

Major, you are cool in a crisis. You are right about the multiple posts, sorry, I type as quickly as I can, and then forget something I was going to say!

It's interesting that Teri would say one should be on a fundamentalist blog just because someone lays out some challenging questions. I didn't know that everyone who is not pro-new age was a fundamentalist.

Dick/Anonymous,

We try to maintain a certain level of decorum here. Personal attacks or insults are discouraged. Also, very long comments and multiple comments are counterproductive; most people don't bother to read them, and they just clog up the thread. And yes, most of what you've written is way off-topic. Please try to exercise a little more restraint if you want to keep commenting here. Thanks.

All right, Mr. Prescott. I appreciate you being courteous while still saying what you wanted to.

I didn't really intend to go too far off topic, hence the Storm NDE. I did know, regarding the other posts, it would be highly controversial, but I did not feel that it was insulting or an attack, I knew it would be very direct, and I thought the points were valid.

So, apologies. I suppose I should try to be more subtle, perhaps. It has always been my nature to be direct, perhaps I'll need to soften that somewhat.

Thanks again.

On Storm, one interesting thing is that he was an "avowed atheist and was hostile to every form of religion and those who practiced it. He often would use rage to control everyone around him and he didn't find joy in anything. Anything that wasn't seen, touched, or felt, he had no faith in. He knew with certainty that the material world was the full extent of everything that was. He considered all belief systems associated with religion to be fantasies for people to deceive themselves with. Beyond what science said, there was nothing else"

http://www.near-death.com/storm.html

He suffered a radical change in his view, it's very interesting... I guess that most atheists with NDE won't change like that.

But who knows...

It's also not at all surprising that so many people are embracing this concept, because it seems that the one thing that more and more people are becoming interested in the most, is...THEMSELVES. And the new age promotes this to the fullest. - DICK

I find it curious that you are critical of preoccupation with SELF. Could you please explain why you consider it misplaced?

The comments to this entry are closed.